[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: gEDA-user: PCB lib.

Xtian Xultz wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:25:55 +0200
Levente KOVACS <leva@interware.hu> wrote:



Hi all,


Reading the mails here, I see that most of you created own libraries. So
did I.

I have redrawn all the headers, for example, becouse the pads of the
original headers ware too small.

Maybe we could share thoes things. Does anyone know a site where to
upload lib files?

>
It is a great idea, but I am afraid about standards. The best is to make
the lib according to some standard, like JEDEC or IPC. The problem is that I couldnt find any document about standards in footprints, and without
this I cant imagine that gEDA libraries can have a consistent librarie to
use gschem2ocb (I never used it...). So, if anyone have documents about
it, share with us please...
Even if it's not very standard it's still a good idea. I was surprised when I couldn't find a TO-263 footprint, I figured this was a pretty standard part.

Here's an idea. Why not have two sections of the library? One would contain all developer-submitted "core" footprints, and one would contain user-submitted items. There's functionally no difference between the two, but it serves as an indication to the user of where the footprint came from and its likelihood of keeping its name in the future.

At this time I've stayed with a commercial product for ONLY one reason - footprints. It would just take too long to redraw the 300 or so footprints I need that I can't find in PCB. gschem is a little weird compared to what I'm used to, but I can get used to it. PCB is actually more sophisticated - my commercial product doesn't create copper pour clearances for new tracks, and that's just such a cool feature.

If I could do a few a week and share these efforts with other users (to have some hope that I wouldn't be redrawing every single one myself) that would probably be enough to kick me over the edge.

Regards,
Chad